Re: [WN] Fwd: WordNet Namespace

(DRAFT! do I correctly portray the solution before I post this to the 
list?)

Mark.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Jeremy,

> In light of the httpRange-14 resolution, the slash solution is not 
> totally trivial, since there is meant to be a 303 response in there 
> somewhere ....

This means we need Princeton to do a redirect, right? This may be 
possible but we have to check with them.

> So there are two, related but separable problems:
> 
> a) what are convenient sets of files for different sorts of users, to 
> use as wordnet in RDF & OWL?
> b) what does a GET return on each of the wordnet URIs?

I would like to continue working on (a) with hash URIs as it is now, 
while we discuss solutions on (b). So the next RDF version and draft 
Note might not reflect these discussions yet, although of course I 
will try to be as up-to-date as possible. Also, if it is not possible 
to let Princeton to do redirects it seems sensible to stick with the 
files-with-hash-URIs solution for both (a) and (b).

I discussed with Peter Mika and Michel Klein about a solution to (b):

- we use slash URIs in the Princeton space, e.g.
   http://wordnet.princeton.edu/rdf/entity

- Princeton server redirects this with 303 to another namespace which 
has the version number of the latest version, e.g.

- http://wordnet.princeton.edu/rdf20/entity

- Princeton redirects this with 303 to another namespace where we host 
the actual RDF files. THis can e.g. be a server at my university (VU 
Amsterdam)

- there a dynamic script queries the current RDF files for all 
subjects that have the requested URI in a triple which are then returned.

Advantages:
- compliant with httpRange-14
- GETting one URI does not return whole WN-RDF file


Problems/Issues:
- requires Princeton to do redirect
- three redirects for one lookup
- requires dynamic script and hosting other than Princeton
- we should agree on which triples should be returned (proposal is 
only triples with that URI as subject, other possibilities exist)
- this is not best practice we're implementing

Mark.

-- 
  Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
        markREMOVE@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark

Received on Friday, 16 December 2005 14:07:10 UTC